[quote]angry chicken wrote:
But are you SERIOUSLY saying that Christians have NOTHING to say about gay marriage? SERIOUSLY?[/quote]
Where did Cortes say this?
I feel like I am taking crazy pills.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Its hard to believe that their “secular” arguments were contrived on their own merit and not just an alternative to the links above, which for debating purposes don’t work in the real world.[/quote]
And sufiandy jumps to the lead again!
Okay Kreskin, please explain to us how “for debating purposes” our secular arguments “don’t work in the real world.”
[/quote]
The links posted were not secular.[/quote]
You’re a troll, right?
Again, not the hypothetical people using hypothetical religious arguments against gay marriage. I know this feels comforting to you and others because you don’t actually have to address the issues, but try and focus here: Us. The posters of PWI. The ones offering rational, logical defenses of maintaining hetero marriage.
Now you are going to tell me you were only talking about the religious people. Who are on other websites. Whose arguments have scarcely even popped their little turtle-heads up. You were just talking about them, right?
Then WHY post about it here? Any of you?
All of this must really hurt your brain.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Don’t forget this
[/quote]
Yes, because they would die out because they can’t make babies is the same thing as calling for the death of queers. Genius. Talk about link bait.[/quote]
Concentration camps for queers with electric fences. Nothing wrong with that. Or did you miss that part?
LOL
Anyone who thinks there’s nothing wrong with what he said must have no conscience.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
therajraj,
Thanks for posting that video of the old time Preacher. In a way he reminds me of one of the local Pastor’s where I live the guy has done more for our community than just about anyone else. He’s actually a lovable individual. But the Pastor in the video never once said that he wanted to kill all the gay people. He said that if you put all the homosexual men together in one area and all the lesbians in another area that they would eventually die out because they cannot reproduce because of their homosexuality So, he was trying to make a point.
[/quote]
He didn’t say he wanted to kill homosexuals, merely round them up, put them in concentration camps with electrified fences. I guess he was kind enough to drop food over though.
I’m beginning to think this Brother Chris guy is a troll.
First he wrote this in another thread:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Anecdotes and exceptions. Liberal atheists in general are not militant atheists (some are) who hate religion. They are marxists who hate Judeo-Christian mores/Western Civilization. You have the big time atheist who is a war loving American conservative, cool. However, that’s now the usual strip of the liberal atheist. [/quote]
Now he’s defending that ridiculous video.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Edevus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Edevus wrote:
Improve your trolling.
[/quote]
I see you’re still lacking facts and sources for your argument.[/quote]
Because I’m arguing religious-style : I don’t need either, I just talk about imaginary stuff and present it as a fact.
Said this :
Where are yours?[/quote]
Wikipedia is not a proper documented source. Sorry, if it doesn’t work in undergrad papers it does not work at all. Nevertheless, you yet to supply facts to your argument. But, I digress.
Fertilization consists in the union of the spermatozoon with the mature ovum (Gray’s Anatomy). In other words, the union of a male and a female sex cell to form a new individual (howstuffworks), or when the sperm and egg combine to create an embryo (Galan). This happens when a man delivers the sperm into the woman during coitus which then inseminates the mature ovum. The encouragement and protection of this reproductive coupling (male and female, and only male and female as that is the only reproductive coupling in humans) is the purpose of state sponsored rational marriage in order to achieve the ends of tax-paying responsible citizens. They want the person that supplied the sperm and the person that supplied the ovum to be in a permanent committed relationship with each other to raise children in the best environment possible: with both of the child’s biological parents under the same roof.
Source:
http://pcos.about.com/od/glossary/g/fertilization.htm[/quote]
I didn’t look into those 3 sites but how are they more reliable than wikipedia?[/quote]
One’s online copy of an anatomy text book. The other is an extremely simplified explanation, and the other is a nurse.
However, if you wish for a more reliable source, try::
Suarez, S. S. (2002). Gamete Transportation. Fertilization (pp. 3-22). San Diego: Academic Press.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Don’t forget this
[/quote]
Yes, because they would die out because they can’t make babies is the same thing as calling for the death of queers. Genius. Talk about link bait.[/quote]
Concentration camps for queers with electric fences. Nothing wrong with that. Or did you miss that part?
LOL
Anyone who thinks there’s nothing wrong with what he said must have no conscience. [/quote]
Who said there wasn’t anything wrong with what he said?
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I’m beginning to think this Brother Chris guy is a troll.
First he wrote this in another thread:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Anecdotes and exceptions. Liberal atheists in general are not militant atheists (some are) who hate religion. They are marxists who hate Judeo-Christian mores/Western Civilization. You have the big time atheist who is a war loving American conservative, cool. However, that’s now the usual strip of the liberal atheist. [/quote]
Now he’s defending that ridiculous video.
[/quote]
Oh, yes. Don’t address my arguments, then say I don’t have arguments. Call me a troll, then turn around and say I’m defending a video that I just criticized. K.
By the way, when did I defend the video? If anything I criticized it, after all I pointed out that the whoever created the video is guilty of link baiting in the worst of type.
Link bait: SEO Advice: linkbait and linkbaiting
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Well how about you guys go and take your beef up with them, then? Because over here at PWI, we have been putting forth nothing but rational, secular arguments for our side. If you’d like to take aim at one of the many, many secular arguments against extending marriage benefits to homosexuals, many of which have appeared, believe it or not, in this very thread, THIS one, not on some other website, we’ll be waiting. [/quote]
I DID. It wasn’t addressed. I clearly stated how extending benefits hetero couples clearly disenfranchises gay couples. I’ve also demonstrated how government sanctioned marriage is in no way contingent upon children (not in the vows, not in the application). Respond to my points if you don’t want me to assume that your opinions are faith based.
Check the thread. Religion was brought into the mix on the first page and not by me. I just took the ball and ran with it, which is a fair play.
Let’s take a step back. My interpretation of the non-religious side of your argument is that you are against same sex marriage based on the SINGLE fact that men can’t have babies, correct? It all comes down to reproduction, yes? (as if you need to be married to reproduce, but I’ll humor this line of thought for the moment).
http://www.malepregnancy.com/science/
Men CAN and HAVE had babies. At this juncture it is risky to both the man and the fetus, but as science progresses, it is HARDLY a stretch to believe that ANYONE, male or female, will be able to carry a child.
You don’t NEED a woman to have a baby.
That technology has been around since the 70’s.
With advances in genetics, soon we won’t even need an egg or sperm, the DNA will be able to be harvested from just about any viable cell and combined with the DNA of another person - Male/Male, Male/Female, Female/Female - it simply won’t matter.
Infertile heterosexual couples have been using this technology with success for MANY YEARS. It is perfectly legal. Also, many infertile heterosexual couples ADOPT. As of 2007 there were 65,000 children that had been adopted by same sex couples.
They certainly meet the definition of nuclear family unit, yes? Why should they be denied the right to have the same privileges as heterosexual couples with children?
How does this not meet the same standard?
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Let’s take a step back. My interpretation of the non-religious side of your argument is that you are against same sex marriage based on the SINGLE fact that men can’t have babies, correct?[/quote]
Heh. This is getting ridiculous.
No, reproduction is part - a big part - but not the only part. The other part is raising the child - and creating and encouraging the best circumstances a child to be raised in, that being raised by his/her biological parents in a committed, low-conflict permanent union.
[quote]Men CAN and HAVE had babies. At this juncture it is risky to both the man and the fetus, but as science progresses, it is HARDLY a stretch to believe that ANYONE, male or female, will be able to carry a child.
You don’t NEED a woman to have a baby.[/quote]
This is absurd - who cares what you can or can’t do - the focus is what you should or shouldn’t do. And I don’t care if scientists find a way for men to birth a baby all by their lonesome, that doesn’t mean children should be born and raised that way.
What a terrible and stupid idea, and what a stupid argument to try and nullify the point of marriage.
The only relevant “standard” is: what is the best arrangement for children? Which arrangement best serves the children and society in general? We want to encourage and promote the best - that being traditional/rational marriage. Nothing else is equal to this arrangement, so our public policy shouldn’t pretend as much.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Let’s take a step back. My interpretation of the non-religious side of your argument is that you are against same sex marriage based on the SINGLE fact that men can’t have babies, correct? It all comes down to reproduction, yes? (as if you need to be married to reproduce, but I’ll humor this line of thought for the moment).
http://www.malepregnancy.com/science/
Men CAN and HAVE had babies. At this juncture it is risky to both the man and the fetus, but as science progresses, it is HARDLY a stretch to believe that ANYONE, male or female, will be able to carry a child.
You don’t NEED a woman to have a baby.
That technology has been around since the 70’s.
With advances in genetics, soon we won’t even need an egg or sperm, the DNA will be able to be harvested from just about any viable cell and combined with the DNA of another person - Male/Male, Male/Female, Female/Female - it simply won’t matter.
Infertile heterosexual couples have been using this technology with success for MANY YEARS. It is perfectly legal. Also, many infertile heterosexual couples ADOPT. As of 2007 there were 65,000 children that had been adopted by same sex couples.
They certainly meet the definition of nuclear family unit, yes? Why should they be denied the right to have the same privileges as heterosexual couples with children?
How does this not meet the same standard?
[/quote]
Where’s Push and his gold bars? I’ve just about given up on the opposition in this forum. How about mixing the DNA of 8 individuals for a 4 person household (having sex or not)? How about for one individual? How about just defining married as US adult citizen with access to medical science. The model is the ordering of the “reproductive sexes,” to produce and rear their biological children in intact homes. That is, with both biological parents. Not, to enable medical science consumerism to experiment with whatever elective arrangement/technique they can possibly imagine.
I can impregnate myself with medical science…marriage rights!
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I can impregnate myself with medical science…marriage rights![/quote]
I’ve been told to attempt the mechanical aspect, before…though I don’t think they were wishing for me to actually conceive.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Actually, we DO have a constitutional right not to be interfered with in our pursuit of happiness, so long as it doesn’t violate the law. Last time I checked, being a homosexual doesn’t violate any FEDERAL laws (I’m sure there are many obscure local and state laws that outlaw homosexuality - right along with blowjobs, having sex with the lights on, any position other than missionary, or any number of “Christian influenced” attempts to legislate THEIR version of “morality”). If it were up to “popular opinion” about what laws to pass and not pass, then inter-racial couples never would have been granted the right to get married because of bigoted people like you. [/quote]
This is a mess, but in any event - no one is outlawing (or suggesting that we outlaw) homosexuality, and that is irrelevant to the public policy issue of gay marriage. However, you should check your facts - for example, federal discrimination laws do not extend to sexual orientation, so your basic premise isn’t even correct.
[/quote]That’s right, and until 64 it was fine to discriminate against people for race, color, national origin, handicap, religion, or sex, and allow said persons to be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subject to discrimination under any program or
activity receiving Federal financial assistance. Later down the line they added familial status. Civil rights is an EVOLVING concept, not a static one. Make no mistake about it, sexual orientation WILL be a protected status very soon. [quote]
And, I’m not a bigot, and you have discredited yourself out of the gate by suggesting I am. Race is a different issue entirely, and miscegenation laws had to do with the invidious motive of perpetuating racial supremacy, not traditional/rational marriage. So, it’s apples and oranges.
Sure it would, because infterility is not static, and heterosexual marriage - even among those that are infertile - help promote the mission of marriage for those who are fertile. And yes, the pu8blic policy of marriage has everything to do with “offspring” - always has, in one form or another.
[/quote]Ummm, fertility IS static. Last time I checked, a woman who has undergone a hysterectomy CAN’T HAVE KIDS. Yet she can marry with out any objection. And while a man who’s testicles or “privy member” have been damaged can’t enter the kingdom of heaven (Deut 23:1), he can certainly get married according to state law to a woman he can’t possible hope to impregnate.[quote]
This has been explained at length. I am not about to hit “reset” just because you can’t be bothered to read the other thread.
[/quote]If you’re assuming knowledge of a prior thread to be relevant to this one, state so and link to it. Otherwise I will assume this thread stands on it’s own merit. [quote]
No, it isn’t, because marriage is a positive right - a kind of entitlement - just like Medicare. The point is that al entitlements have public policy aims. Medicare’s aim is to assist elderly people with health care. Marriage’s aim is to reinforce child birthing and rearing by biological parents.
[/quote]What country do YOU live in? If anything, the US government reinforces the OPPOSITE of what you’re saying! It PAYS single women to sit at home and not get a job. It REWARDS them for the number of out of wedlock babies they produce, and if they get married they take away the money… So please kindly explain how marriage is an entitlement when in fact, having babies OUT OF WEDLOCK is an entitlement! With agencies and federal and state workers employed to monitor and disburse the funds! LMAO[quote]
If a group falls outside the policy’s aim, it isn’t “discrimination” to exclude that group. Such is the case with gays and marriage, just as it is with young people and Medicare.
[/quote]Again, please point to this policy you speak of. Surely there is a statute or a law or a resolution or a congressional finding on the matter… If not, then it is just a figment of your imagination, and not a fact[quote]
And you are arguing with yourself - I am making the secular case for marriage, I haven’t mentioned religion, and I have no reason to.
Oh, and I rebutted your post. [/quote]
right back attcha! 
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Well, I had rather my words be incoherent than my thoughts, which must be terrible, I am sure.[/quote]
I’ll take your word for it, and I have no doubt that you are sure of it.
[quote]In my perfect world, government would get out of the marriage business.
There is no social engineering to be seen.
In your perfect world your vision of social engineering competes with others, take this up with your fellow liberals. [/quote]
This is stupid on its face - if it were a “perfect” world, there would be no competition among concepts and policies or need for it, because there would be no “imperfections” to smooth out or fix by and through the contest of ideas.
Well done.
[quote]You even go so far as if the wish to be accepted is not perfectly natural too… for a social animal.
THE social animal, no less. [/quote]
There is nothing wrong with someone wanted to be accepted, that is fine - that is irrelevant to whether we need to institutionalize through the power of the state a concept that provides no reciprocal benefits to society.
Of course it is an exercise in power - society exercises its power to put a brake on undesirable activity for the betterment of said society, and always has. It’s a crucial function to maintaining civilization.
That doesn’t fit in with your libertarian “perfect world” - so what? Even better - who cares?[/quote]
Well, it seems to be unavoidable now, poppycock.
Yes, I am sure of it, I witness your suffering.
Then, in a perfect world, as far as the circumstances make it possible, noone would force his idea of how a marriage should be on others. If that leads to a ruthless Darwinian selection process, awesome. Because I, do not pretend to know, that is your territory Hillary.
As to your claims that it provides no benefits to society, prove it Jeremy, I needz to know ur calculus. U R so incredibly sure that it must be so. Show me the numbers.
Finally, no, or maybe yes, it always has, but what it deemed to be insufferable has changed quite a bit over time.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Let’s take a step back. My interpretation of the non-religious side of your argument is that you are against same sex marriage based on the SINGLE fact that men can’t have babies, correct?[/quote]
Heh. This is getting ridiculous.
[/quote]How is my seeking to clarify your position ridiculous? If I am to soundly defeat your argument, I must clarify to fine detail lest I leave you wiggle room.[quote]
No, reproduction is part - a big part - but not the only part. The other part is raising the child - and creating and encouraging the best circumstances a child to be raised in, that being raised by his/her biological parents in a committed, low-conflict permanent union.
[/quote]
So you think that the GOVERNMENT knows best how to raise a child? Damn, TB, I had always taken you to be a small government kind of guy. So if the goal is committed, low-conflict, permanent unions, then WHY is divorce legal? Why are felons like me allowed to reproduce? Wouldn’t that raise the statistical odds of conflict? Let’s castrate drug addicts and people who raise their voice. It’s a very slippery slope you’re walking on. Just like your point that it’s not a constitutional guarantee to be happy, well there’s no constitutional guarantee that you’ll have perfect parents either. You simply can’t legislate that, no matter HOW much it’s in a child’s best interest.[quote]
[quote]Men CAN and HAVE had babies. At this juncture it is risky to both the man and the fetus, but as science progresses, it is HARDLY a stretch to believe that ANYONE, male or female, will be able to carry a child.
You don’t NEED a woman to have a baby.[/quote]
This is absurd - who cares what you can or can’t do - the focus is what you should or shouldn’t do. And I don’t care if scientists find a way for men to birth a baby all by their lonesome, that doesn’t mean children should be born and raised that way.
What a terrible and stupid idea, and what a stupid argument to try and nullify the point of marriage.
[/quote]Ahhh, now we get to the crux of it! SHOULD. Base on WHAT exactly? Who are you to tell me what I SHOULD or SHOULD NOT do? What gives YOU the moral compass? Where is the underlying authority to your opinion? In short, I don’t give a damn what you or people like you think I ‘should’ do. If I’m not directly hurting you or yours, BUTT OUT! If you don’t like it, change the channel! If you want your child taught creationism, send them to a Christian school, but stay outta fucking with MY kid’s education! See how that works? Methinks you SHOULD mind your own business! [quote]
The only relevant “standard” is: what is the best arrangement for children? Which arrangement best serves the children and society in general? We want to encourage and promote the best - that being traditional/rational marriage. Nothing else is equal to this arrangement, so our public policy shouldn’t pretend as much.[/quote]
Nice CUT JOB! Nothing like making a point by copying and pasting things out of context and ignoring the primary point of a post! LMAO Here’s what I wrote when questioning the same standard:
Infertile heterosexual couples have been using this technology (invitro fertilization) with success for MANY YEARS. It is perfectly legal. Also, many infertile heterosexual couples ADOPT. As of 2007 there were 65,000 children that had been adopted by same sex couples.
http://articles.cnn.com/...titute?_s=PM:US
They certainly meet the definition of nuclear family unit, yes? Why should they be denied the right to have the same privileges as heterosexual couples with children?
How does this not meet the same standard?
As to the rest of your assertion that ‘you want the “best” circumstance possible for children’, how many same sex couples who have legally adopted children do you personally know?
I personally know more than ten such couples, men/men, women/women, one of them is even a transgender. They all have kids they’ve adopted and/or had before they came out. I’ve met the kids. They all seemed like perfectly normal kids to me. They certainly had far more stability than I had growing up with my mother and her four abusive husbands.
That source agrees with me.
So does this one.
STABILITY AND LOVE is what makes for a good environment for kids - the parent’s sexual orientation has NOTHING to do with it. Get your facts ‘straight’. ba dum pshhh! lol
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Well, I had rather my words be incoherent than my thoughts, which must be terrible, I am sure.[/quote]
I’ll take your word for it, and I have no doubt that you are sure of it.
[quote]In my perfect world, government would get out of the marriage business.
There is no social engineering to be seen.
In your perfect world your vision of social engineering competes with others, take this up with your fellow liberals. [/quote]
This is stupid on its face - if it were a “perfect” world, there would be no competition among concepts and policies or need for it, because there would be no “imperfections” to smooth out or fix by and through the contest of ideas.
Well done.
[quote]You even go so far as if the wish to be accepted is not perfectly natural too… for a social animal.
THE social animal, no less. [/quote]
There is nothing wrong with someone wanted to be accepted, that is fine - that is irrelevant to whether we need to institutionalize through the power of the state a concept that provides no reciprocal benefits to society.
Of course it is an exercise in power - society exercises its power to put a brake on undesirable activity for the betterment of said society, and always has. It’s a crucial function to maintaining civilization.
That doesn’t fit in with your libertarian “perfect world” - so what? Even better - who cares?[/quote]
Well, it seems to be unavoidable now, poppycock.
Yes, I am sure of it, I witness your suffering.
Then, in a perfect world, as far as the circumstances make it possible, noone would force his idea of how a marriage should be on others. If that leads to a ruthless Darwinian selection process, awesome. Because I, do not pretend to know, that is your territory Hillary.
As to your claims that it provides no benefits to society, prove it Jeremy, I needz to know ur calculus. U R so incredibly sure that it must be so. Show me the numbers.
Finally, no, or maybe yes, it always has, but what it deemed to be insufferable has changed quite a bit over time.
[/quote]
It wasn’t about “ANY” benefit. It’s about a critical benefit. Homosexuality vanishes tomorrow (and since we’re talking about medical science now, a real possibility), it’s a curious news story. Heterosexuality? disaster. Then there’s the whole raising the child with both biological parents present.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Damn, TB, I had always taken you to be a small government kind of guy.[/quote]
[/quote]
He is. Those arguing for expansion of STATE RECOGNIZED marriage for homosexuals are asking for pointless government expansion. Society has a critical interest in how heterosexuals (the paired reproductive sexes) arrange their relationships. Thus, government recognition and privileging of traditional marriage arrangement is justified.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Damn, TB, I had always taken you to be a small government kind of guy.[/quote]
He is. Those arguing for expansion of STATE RECOGNIZED marriage for homosexuals are asking for pointless government expansion. Society has a critical interest in how heterosexuals (the paired reproductive sexes) arrange their relationships. Thus, government recognition and privileging of traditional marriage arrangement is justified. [/quote]
If you really wanted the best bang for your buck, then you should be fighting a welfare/entitlement reform campaign and let the little fairies get married if they want to. There’s absolutely NO reason (other than the fallacious arguments about reproduction and child rearing, both of which I’ve already disprooven) same sex couples shouldn’t be allowed to be married. Unless there are underlying religious beliefs… But all of you have CLEARLY stated that your religious beliefs have NOTHING to do with your position on gay marriage. It’s purely secular. But even THOSE arguments don’t hold any water.
So what’s next? TB, arguably one of the most intelligent and well respected posters in PWI, resorted to arguing what SHOULD be allowed. If HE can’t make a decent factual argument, do you think that YOUR tiny little brain can? Are you going to tell me how the voice of God told you it was wrong? I mean apparently hallucinations are legitimate grounds for making decisions according those of you with “faith”…